Kenneth is a Christian who comments here. After reading his stuff I'd like to challenge him with an open letter. It may seem harsh, but he's been here a while and he can handle it:

kenneth, if you actually believe what you say then you are a functionally insane person, in the same way as an alcoholic can be functional in society. Your brain is lying to you just like we know brains can do to people. Wow! You're hopeless and nothing we could say will change your mind, in the same way as a brainwashed cultist cannot be reached without an intervention. We tell you to put yourself in the shoes of other religionists who would say the same things, and you can't do it.

We can point out to you that your God agrees with you about everything, and that doesn't affect you. LINK.

We could point out how your brain is lying to you about your life, and it won't be able to penetrate your lying brain: LINK.

We could prove to you that faith based processes are notoriously unreliable, and it won't be a cause for doubt: LINK.

In fact, you're here to strengthen your faith, for we know that when confronted with contrary evidence the deluded brain will convince its host to believe even more deeply: LINK.

We can convince you that people believe what they prefer to be true, and this wouldn't phase you in the least. You'll even come to the wrong conclusion about this evidence. You'll conclude that others do that, not you, even though the correct conclusion is that we should all think exclusively based on the probabilities as set by science. LINK.

You must even deny or denigrate science to believe, but that doesn't bother you a bit: LINK. A great talk was done by Sean Carroll who described six arguments used by science denialists that you would agree with, but are dead wrong about:

The six arguments used by science denialists aim to:
1) Cast doubt on science.
2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists.
3) Magnify disagreements between scientists, especially to cite gadflies as authorities.
4) Exaggerate the potential harm coming from science.
5) Appeal to the need and value of personal freedom.
6) Object that accepting science repudiates some key philosophy.

Carroll argued the last one is very important. Evidence only matters to people who haven't dug in on that last point.